The Injustice of Psychological Testing
Forensic vs. Clinical Testing
Psychological testing is and has been routinely used in court cases that require specific forensic evaluations. It is often used in child-custody cases, evaluation for parole, in the assessment of success in community programs — the list goes on. Differing fundamentally from forensic evaluations, evaluations in a clinical setting are done to analyze and identify the target problems and needs, develop a treatment plan, and ultimately assist and support the patient in a complete recovery. If the test is initially misinterpreted in a clinical setting, the treatment plan that has been constructed will not be effective, and the patient will not make the progress that is expected. This is not uncommon, and as a result treatment plans are often modified throughout the course of the treatment, and tailored for the patient’s specific needs. However, it is not a simple “let’s try this instead” if mistaken conclusions are drawn in a forensic evaluation, it could detrimentally affect a person’s entire life — for instance, claiming them guilty for a crime or not giving them parental rights to their child.
Multiscale inventory tests are commonly used in court cases and assess different aspects of a person’s functioning or personality based on his or her answers to a standard series of questions — giving a variation of response styles that correspond to a traits (depending on the test).
Sounds good in theory, right? We should be able to say “here’s a pencil and paper, take the test, and the score that you receive will decide whether or not you qualify for parole or you spend the rest of your life with three walls, steel bars and a five star restaurant!” (Insert a too-white smile and a “golly, I am sure excited Mr. Therapist!”)
Thankfully no, that isn’t the way that multiscale inventory tests operate — they require interpretation — and although the actual scoring of the test may be entirely standardized and objective — the interpretation of the results is not. Take for instance the use (and misuse) of the MMPI-2; a revision of the original Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and composed of 567 true or false questions organized into four types of scales: clinical scales (both clinical and restructured clinical), content scales, validity scales, and specialized research scales.[i] The MMPI-2 is used often in child-custody cases and child-abuse cases — identifying the parents as suitable for caring for the children, or identifying the alleged offender of being likely to carry out the action. As a tool — the MMPI-2 is comprehensive and allows for the evaluation of characteristics, however these results can be manipulated and skewed — particularly if the evaluation of raw data is performed by a computer and is used as the sole interpretation. Another example is by the client him or herself — positive self-presentation can significantly influence the validity of this test — particularly in post-divorce custody assessments.[ii]
This is just one test that is used in courts that can be greatly misinterpreted — there are many more cases that can exemplify the point that I am trying to make. : it is important to be cautious when using psychological tests in the courts as a form of empirical evidence for testimony. Expert witnesses and clinicians must take into consideration the adjustments that need to be made when using standardized psychological tests.
By no stretch am I saying, “stop using psychological tests” — absolutely not. In many instances if they are administered properly and interpreted well — they can be used as one component of a forensic evaluation, and can be entirely helpful for the case itself. However widely accepted, it is not fair — nor ethical — to consider a standardized psychological test as a be-all-end-all of evaluation; whether it is assessing risk for custodial purposes, suitability of an inmate to a particular post-prison program — a test does not spell justice.
[i] For a detailed breakdown of the MMPI-2 visit http://www.cdonaldwilliamsmd.com/introduction_to_the_mmpi2.html
[ii] Carr, G. D., Moretti, M. M., & Cue, B. J. (2005). Evaluating Parenting Capacity: Validity Problems With the MMPI-2, PAI, CAPI, and Ratings of Child Adjustment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(2), 188–196.
